I feel like none of the other games' stories can stand on their own like the first game's can. The rest of the trilogy are direct sequels which don't make much sense without it. Of course, that isn't a flaw in itself, it just means that their stories don't mean anything without the original, making the three effectively one big story.

In AA, the cases progressed linearly, and each one had a place in the story. 1-1 introduced Phoenix, Larry, Mia and the Judge. The next two had important story developments(Mia's death, Edgeworth helping Phoenix).1-4 was the finale which connected many characters and story elements from every case and had a proper ending. It was also incredibly funny and a satire of the Japanese court system.

JFA begins as an amnesia story, but not only does it drop that immediately (That's not necessarily a bad thing, but letting it continue throught the game could have made for interesting developments - of course, it would have destroyed the point of ther story: JFA is about what it means for Phoenix to be a lawyer.), it even has the second case take place before the first one. Knowing that Maya is alive and well and not in prison in 2-1 negates any tension in 2-2. JFA has no overarching story - instead, its cases are connected tematically. Overall, I think that makes it weaker.

T&T does non-linear storytelling much better than JFA. It mixes Mia's cases with Phoenix's in such a way that the aforementioned problem doesn't exist. There is an overarching story, but it takes a back seat in 2-2 and 2-3. 2-2 exists to introduce Godot, 2-3 exists because going from 2-2 to 2-4 would make him much less mysterious. Also, there was a hint for the last case(ketchup) in 2-3, which is pretty cool. The third game definitely has a good story, though returning characters and plot elements make it not standalone, but part of the trilogy.

The trilogy's story, when taken as a whole, seems a little unfocused at times, but is internally consistent(mostly), and complete.

Then there's AJ. The trilogy clearly didn't need a continuation, and the change in main characters really made for interesting mysteries, and on the surface, it seems to make the story capable of standing on its own. There was so much potential in telling a story about Phoenix falling from grace, after having become a legend. Sadly, some of the decisions made for the story make it much, much weaker than AA's.

AAI is an interesting case. It's not a direct sequel to any of the previous games, but it suffers from similar problems. For example, all the cameos may be for fanservice, but are detrimential to the story IMO. Non-linear storytelling is used here like in JFA, but the problem about the tension is intensified even more. The first case takes place before the last one, but after the other three, making the last case the only one to really have dramatic stakes. Also, the overarching story is not really that engaging, because while it seems to be about Edgeworth tracking down a smuggling ring, Edgeworth only solves some murders that involve people affiliated with the smuggling ring. Taking down the smuggling ring just seems like a side effect of that. While the game builds up another plotline(Yatagarasu), the finale is not about that. It gets resolved before the main plot. Overall AAI is very impersonal, which is another reason why I think it's a weak story.Now, AAI2 is much better. The cases are presented in a linear order (with a flashback within one case), eliminating the tension problem. The story builds not only on its predecessor, but also expands on things PWAA left unexplained(because they were not important). That does mean that it can't stand on its own, but makes it a good sequel to AAI, and provides fanservice without pandering to nostalgia(at least not with the main story). But the thing that really makes AAI2 the best story since the trilogy is that the cases not only follow each other closely(meaning that the game takes place over a very short time compared to main series games), but they are so interconnected that they don't feel like they just happened to occur after each other, like in AAI, but are actually part of one cohesive narrative. This cohesive narrative is what makes the story compelling.

After having played AAI2, I'm quite baffled by DD. It's a step backwards in terms of story, and frankly, it's kind of a mess. I think it's the worst offender when it comes to using non-linearity. 5-1 takes place in the middle of 5-4, making the two cases inbetween tension-free. Especially 5-3, which has the same defendant as 5-1! And since 5-4 and 5-5 are basically the same case anyway, there's hardly any tension in the game at all. The narrative is anything but cohesive, especially with the three protagonists. None of them get even two full cases! (Not counting the DLC case, which is not part of the main story anyway.) None of them get any meaning ful development. Actually, no main character gets any meaningful development. The game really doesn't have an overarching story, just new characters who meet up in the last case in which Phoenix solves the mystery in ther past and present.DD also suffers from "plagiarism", which is what I call taking elements of old cases and putting them in a new context, basically pandering to nostalgia on a story level, which just comes off as lazy and/or uncreative. Yes, the previous games reused elements of old cases, but never this many. Also, they made the hints WAY TOO OBVIOUS, especially for big reveals. This made the game too easy, which made it less fun.Another obvious problem is the lack of continuity starting from DD. None of the unresolved issues in AJ were really addressed. Not only that, 5-5's ending raised so many questions that were never answered in the next game.

SoJ was better. There's no problem with non-linearity this time, and it's not as blatant with the hints - at least most of the time. I actually really liked the premise: Phoenix comes to a country which is about to have a revolution. This could have allowed it the freedom to become a great standalone story, maybe even incorporating some satire, which has been missing from the series for a long time. Sadly, the execution let me down. 6-2 and 6-4 had nothing to do with the story, they could have been cut in their entirety without losing anything. 6-1 and 6-3 were decent cases, I guess. 6-5 was interesting in that it was really two cases in one. I liked the first one(except for the whole thing with Phoenix, that was a horrible decision). The second part wasn't horrible, but I felt like the way they handled the "revolution" just left it as wasted potential. Overall, it was better, but not a great story, and it definitely doesn't stand alone in any way. (And it still has the "plagiarism" problem. And retcons.)

So, to sum up: The series has had its ups and downs, sure, but the last two games worry me because they are setting a dangerous precedent. If they keep expanding the series DD/SoJ-style, it will never go anywhere. Introducing more lawyers, "powers", prosecutors, plotlines that go unresolved in the last cases and are never brought up again, reusing old elements will just make Ace Attorney a disjointed mess with no overarching story, no focus, no direction.

I feel like none of the other games' stories can stand on their own like the first game's can. The rest of the trilogy are direct sequels which don't make much sense without it. Of course, that isn't a flaw in itself, it just means that their stories don't mean anything without the original, making the three effectively one big story.

I had the whole "I want this to stop before it undoes itself" thinking around the time DD was announced as a Non-Takumi game because I saw what IMHO was a bad Ace Attorney game in AAI due to my complete disinterest throughout all of I-5 and the overplot of that game in hindsight, and as soon as I figured out the whole thing with Takumi vs Yamazaki in the game credits I jumped to "Yamazaki = bad, Takumi = good" but then also thought "Apollo Justice = SUCKS" so I really felt the series started going downhill, and it certainly has, but at some point I replaced that cynisim... maybe even snobby attitude with gratitude for the fact that we at least get new games. The true canon in my eyes will always be just AA1 and then 2 and 3 but honestly, like you, I see the first game as the only pure Ace Attorney game (bear with me, it's the best way I can describe it).

It's because like Ghost Trick, the first game in any series encapsulates the concept. Therefore the story and its agenda exists in the first game. The Last of Us is not interesting because it has a slightly alternative Zombie setting with fungus-infected people who go nuts... it's all just a macguffin for A) the type of gameplay the game offers and B) Its story, and for the story the setting really is no more than a goal-indicator for its characters to go through certain dramatic arc that in turn informs the audience of something about themselves as human beings.

Ace Attorney 1's agenda is clearly whatever Takumi thought/knew about the law at the time, which is quirky because he really doesn't know much in the way of facts about how the law works in detail, but he gets the basics and he has opinions which are projected in the game. The other entries in the series also throw social/political balls in the air like critiquing the entertainment industry (or at least satiring it) and there's also just a lot of fun and games, but it's the first one where it feels encapsulated and focused in one cohesive thesis I think. All the main characters are archetypes/symbols for the parts of the law (or spirit mediums ) they represent. It's caricatured but it speaks to a lot of truths about how the courts and the law have served japan. There's the attorneys and prosecutors depicted as "evil" by highlighting their focus on raw results for own personal gain or non-humaniatarian ideas about what justice means, and there's the thing about low self-confidence in the police as shown with Gumshoe which I've heard was a thing IRL. It's because of these things that AA1 by far has the most subtext and thereby merit and things that really resonates in me much more than any other game in the series has managed to.

Then, when the shift happened to Yamazaki I personally feel like the canon has become "fantasy"-ized. It feels like any series when it has gotten too far and gets new writers who are more fans of the canon than they are of the meaning that was ingrained within it. In reality any story is built with its ideas and meaning in mind and as a result you get some sort of canon that sequels have to take into account but because sequels have to be new stories, the canon becomes mere baggage because its subtext has already been used to make one story, so while having to be original with the sequel you really have to include a lot more fluff that doesn't really contribute to the new story's agenda unless you either subvert the previous canon or re-include it to make a point in the new story. Sorry if this got convoluted in my way of explaining it, but I'm trying to say that I find that this is the reason why no franchise can go on forever. I strongly believe franchises are meant to come and go unless you want your fans to grow tired of them, like a good song. You can't hear a song you really like more than 100 times or so before you start to loathe it. The full scope of released Ace Attorney games have already made some fans jump off the train and otherwise it's begun to split the fanbase into the "I liked the trilogy but not the new games" camp and "I like all games, what are you talking about?" camps, which isn't inherently bad, hence my very first point in the top of my post. All it really should mean is that for some the series has run its course and then it's fine to jump off and let the remaining enthusiasts have their fun. Truth is, every game is a new chance for something really good, so I always hope whenever a new AA game is announced that it does something to win me over and make me appreciate that the series is in fact still moving.

I didn't feel like the series was in decline until after I played SoJ. I can understand feeling that way after DD, but I hoped that the developers would have learned from the mistakes made in DD to make the next game better. Not the case, of course. They reused points from the trilogy like Maya getting kidnapped again and Nahyuta being an Edgeworth copy (Apollo knew Nahyuta from a young age? Wow, I wonder what's going to happen?) that I could not be bothered to care. And with 6-5, I absolutely hated the sudden direction the game took for the entire case. It was the first time I actually hated what was happening in AA. If they are going to continue in this way then it's better to leave it as it is and say the franchise has run its course. I'm personally more interested to see what Takumi could do in a non-AA game like he did with Ghost Trick.

I hoped that the developers would have learned from the mistakes made in DD to make the next game better..

Actually, when I saw that DD had some of the same problems as AAI, I hoped they would learn from their mistakes and make the sequel better, just like they did with AAI's sequel. I did like SoJ better, but it wasn't the huge improvement I was hoping for. It's really a shame that they had an idea for the game - revolution in a far-off country - and then threw in cases 2 and 4 which took place back home and had literally nothing to do with the plot. I think SoJ could have been much better if things had actually happened in Khu'rain before case 5.

Also, while AJ has many problems, not continuing it really broke the canon. They don't have any plotlines they could continue from previous games because they missed the opportunity in DD, and they don't do anything with theor own storylines. If they continue like this, the series will just become a series of disjointed sequels.

I didn't feel like the series was in decline until after I played SoJ. I can understand feeling that way after DD, but I hoped that the developers would have learned from the mistakes made in DD to make the next game better. Not the case, of course. They reused points from the trilogy like Maya getting kidnapped again and Nahyuta being an Edgeworth copy (Apollo knew Nahyuta from a young age? Wow, I wonder what's going to happen?) that I could not be bothered to care. And with 6-5, I absolutely hated the sudden direction the game took for the entire case. It was the first time I actually hated what was happening in AA. If they are going to continue in this way then it's better to leave it as it is and say the franchise has run its course. I'm personally more interested to see what Takumi could do in a non-AA game like he did with Ghost Trick.

DD's mistakes were just a continuation of GK's mistakes but that's just my opinion. Around the time DD was incoming and it was revealed that it was a GK-team game I remember feeling like "they have to prove they're better than what they made with GK" and around that time AAI2 was still japanese-only so only hearesay had infos and all who had played it said "the GK team improved!". After DD I just feel like it is what it is, and I'd rather have that than only one game from whatever Takumi is doing. He's obviously not interested in going back to milking the franchise he wanted to end at T&T and even if the DD/SoJ team manages to completely screw up the lore or something in the future it doesn't negate the qualities of the previous games. Basically, I'd rather have 2 different Ace Attorney games done by two different teams than only one out of my own snobbing towards team-Yamazaki, after all.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum